I always felt that if you don't like the low wages of the corporation you work for, you should find another employer, or start your own business. You could also strike. If they retaliate, you probably didn't want to do business with them (sell your labor to them) in the first place. If you don't have these options, is that really their problem? They are a customer who buys your labor from you. Why should they have any obligations to you?
@thor there are plenty of circumstances where an employer has an unacceptable level of power over the employee. Eg. Small town, few employers. Or employee has limited or specialized skills and few options. Or employers collude to restrict options. Or employers use violence/intimidation to reduce options. All of these problems exist. That's why we pass laws to restrict employer power
@Kryten Employers are customers. Employees are selling their services. If a salesman can't do good business in one town, he moves to the next. If his product doesn't sell, he switches products. If his customers get violent or intimidating, that's a matter for the police. If the police won't protect him, that's a problem with the government.
@Kryten We only offer all these protections to ordinary people because they're too weak and helpless to survive on their own and the nanny state must hold their hand. Try to hold them accountable, and soon, they are revolting because of their self-inflicted poor living and working conditions. They are only pushed around because they're doormats. I realize that, yes, this is how ordinary people are, but I just wish they had more guts and took more responsibility.
@Kryten The people who do have guts and dare to take control of their lives are the ones stymied and antagonized by these laws. In my opinion, business people, contractors, lawyers, judges, politicians and so on are a step above the rest of the population. There are 3 maturity levels in my opinion: child, adult and "super-adult". Super-adults are forced to take care of everyone else. They're left with the *real* responsibility.
@Kryten Society already divides us into two: Minor and adult. It's not truly about age; age is just the closest thing to a quantifier of maturity and self-sufficiency that we know of. If we are going to have legal differences for different maturity levels, why not add more steps to the scale? It could be more than three. I mention a third category because I believe some people are capable of handling more privileges and responsibilities than mere adulthood grants you.
@thor Citation needed.
@Kryten The whole notion of 18 being "grown up" is pretty much also an opinion without much science behind it. Some jurisdictions have multiple levels in practice: 16 for sexual consent in many places, 21 to consume liquor in the United States. And I'm adding my opinion to the pile.
@Kryten The reason I want to see this happen is so that we can quit arguing about how strict the laws should be. Those who want, and are capable of responsibly handling fewer restrictions, could just get that. It's not so different from granting permits and licenses really.
@thor "There are three maturity levels in my opinion..." That's an interesting way you've divided everyone in the world into three classes. Got any evidence that the world actually works that way?